Tony Blair's "preemptive" strike at the long stalemated Palestinian-Israeli conflict issue may be seen in the following light:

(a) To improve his damaged image within his Labour Party as well as that with the British people.

(b) At long last he openly accepted that the main source of terrorism in the world is the long-standing Palestinian-Israeli conflict. He, however, did not specifically say that this was due to Israeli occupation of Arab land and its state terrorism against the occupied people to keep them under control. Israel and its friends say all terrorist infrastructures need to be dismantled. This is in the hand of Israel. If Israel ends occupation and withdraws its deadly forces to its border of 1967, the "terrorism" will end forthwith. Anyway, Israel has to clearly realise that any form of occupation or attempt to subjugate people will lead to revolt and consequent offensive to end occupation or subjugation, which Bush, Blair, Howard and company see as terrorism.

(c) Prime Minister Blair appears to have persuaded President Bush to understand that action in Palestinian-Israeli front is a must to recover from Iraq disaster. Bush's own visit to Europe following Condoleezza Rice's visit probably convinced him somewhat of doing something to get support of EU in other fronts and particularly on Iran. EU, as it seems, gave fairly strong message to Bush that EU stands united and is itself interested to have its own position as a world power which the rest of the world expects EU to be. If EU can deal with Russia patiently and effectively despite Bush's threat of "spread of democracy" in Russia and nearby countries (Putin rejected Bush's brand of democracy out of hand), then EU can come to the stage of a superpower. It's not only the military strength that matters, the over all support of the rest of world including Russia is crucial to be the other superpower.

(d) President Bush apparently was convinced that something must be done in the Israeli-Palestinian front and also go by what EU does on Iran to repair damage done to the transatlantic alliance.

Any way, the main purpose of the conference was to suggest measures that could strengthen the institutional base of Palestinian Authority so that it could take over Gaza and hopefully the rest of the West Bank and run the Palestinian state democratically and with reasonable accountability. London conference said that the path to peace required direct talk leading to "a safe and secure Israel and a sovereign, independent, viable, democratic and territorially contiguous Palestine, living side by side in peace and security." The other purpose was to bring support of the international community as a whole, apart from the Quartet, for a Palestinian state. Indeed, Blair did it wittingly as too much of his support to Bush brought him to the brink of disaster politically.

The conference ended with a reasonable success with the full international support to the Palestinian cause. With the presence of Secretary of State of the US and United Nations SG Kofi Annan, the success appeared more pronounced. Now President Bush should be under pressure by the decision of London meeting to have more meaningful engagement on Palestinian-Israeli issue… Indeed, Dr. Rice very specifically said, " Israel must take no action that prejudice a final settlement, and must help ensure that a new Palestinian state is truly viable. A state of scattered territories will not work." The commitment of Secretary of State of the USA to this particular point of territorially contiguous state is the key achievement as Clinton's Camp David summit with Arafat and Ehud Barak failed particularly on this issue.

Many blame Arafat for not accepting Barak's offer of roughly 96 per cent of the West Bank, but they do not see the point that Barak's offer did not give a contiguous territory; it was all scattered -- areas punctured by Israeli settlements and their connecting roads. Indeed, Arafat could not have accepted a truncated Palestinian state. Even if he did so for the sake of having a state, this would not have been acceptable to the Palestinians. Probably Arafat could have maintained good relations with the US and others but would have been a failed leader with the Palestinians. In fact, this would have led to more violence. Therefore, he decided to remain a failed leader to Israel and the US but faithful to his people.

The other important achievement was the assurance of financial support of the international community to the PA under the new commitment of PA leadership to be fully accountable. So far as democracy in Palestinian territories is concerned, the details were shown in terms of election of the National Assembly and other local bodies.

In terms of Security, the commitment of President Mahmud Abbas was clear and loud. Many see this as if Mahmud Abbas was giving security to the occupiers against the occupied. But this he had to as there appears no other alternative, under the circumstances, as any further serious breakdown in the security will only invite Israel's disproportionate response leading to further killing and destruction of Palestinian homes and properties. The amalgamation of the security apparatus into a joint command may help Mahmud Abbas. The presence of Lt-General Ward as a Security Coordinator was to satisfy Israelis and the US though Palestinians may not like it. Indeed, some UN Observers on security could be better, but Israel does not like UN personnel. So this could again be seen as a compromise by Mahmud Abbas. But these concessions are indeed eroding his position with the Palestinian opposition including Hamas.

This conference gave the opportunity to Abbas to have more fruitful communications with the EU which has been giving support to PA. He met the President of EU Manuel Barrossa, Foreign policy Chief Javier Solana and other important leaders of EU. EU is the biggest donor to the PA. So it was important for President Abbas to maintain good relations with EU. Indeed, if EU, with the present positive and active support of Bush's great friend Blair, makes quick move as France has already committed to host the negotiating conference in the second half of this year, some good progress can be made in the Palestinian-Israeli track which is a must to reduce tension in the Middle East and terrorism in general. But it remains to be seen whether Israel would finally accept France's offer.

London conference took place amid other crises in the M-E. Following so-called democratic election under occupation tanks and bullets in Iraq, further violence erupted there and dozens are killed every day. There is yet no sign of any compromise for forming a government. Meanwhile the worst was the assassination in Beirut of Rafik Hariri, former Prime Minister of Lebanon. Israel immediately said the assassination was carried out by Syria so that nobody can ever say Israel did it to create a case for US invasion of Syria. Israel with the US help has finished Iraq; now it is Syria's turn and may be Iran thereafter. It's Sharon's long-term plan. But the west including the US should understand that Bashar al-Assad is not a person to indulge in such criminal activities. The US also joined Israel in blaming Syria for the murder. President Bush openly asked for complete withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon and insisted that it must not be a "half-hearted" one. France and some other countries including important Arab countries supported Syrian withdrawal. What a double standard in international politics! Israel has been having its occupation forces in Palestinian territories since 1967 and the US occupation forces in Korean Peninsula and Japan for many years and in Iraq for over one and half years.

Any way, as there is a serious demand for withdrawal, Syria should withdraw. Indeed, all occupation forces in Middle East and elsewhere must withdraw from respective occupied territories. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, however, said in the Parliament on March 5 that he would do so if there is a "consensus" on withdrawal. He knows that there could be no consensus as there is a group in Lebanon that wants Syria to remain in Lebanon. It's a ethnicity-infected territory compounded by the presence of Hezbullah and a large number of Palestinian refugees. Fresh attack from Israel on Lebanon on the plea of controlling Hezbullah cannot be ruled out. But Syrian President said he would withdraw Syrian forces to the Bekka Valley near to Syrian border. May be thereafter to Syrian border. This will obviously not satisfy Lebanese opposition. Thus the problem in Lebanon would continue and indeed multiply in the coming days with uncertain consequences.

Muslehuddin Ahmad is a former Secretary, Ambassador and Founder VC of NSU and Presidency University. He is also the Chairman of Civic Watch- Bangladesh and Convener of Movement for Corruption-free Society.